Williams v. State
2014 Miss. LEXIS 102
| Miss. | 2014Background
- J.C. Williams was indicted for sale of cocaine (less than .1 gram) in Jones County; indictment did not mention habitual-offender status.
- Three days before trial the State moved to amend the indictment to charge Williams as a habitual offender under Miss. Code § 99-19-81; motion served on defense the same day and granted after jury selection.
- Williams was convicted; at sentencing the State also sought enhancement as a subsequent drug offender under Miss. Code § 41-29-147, which increased the potential maximum sentence.
- On appeal Williams argued the trial court erred in permitting the late amendment; the Court of Appeals affirmed. Williams petitioned for certiorari and the Supreme Court granted review.
- The Supreme Court found the State gave adequate pretrial notice to seek habitual-offender enhancement (§ 99-19-81) but failed to give adequate notice that it would seek subsequent-drug-offender enhancement (§ 41-29-147).
- The Court affirmed the conviction, vacated the sentence to the extent it relied on § 41-29-147, and remanded for resentencing with only the § 99-19-81 enhancement available.
Issues
| Issue | Plaintiff's Argument | Defendant's Argument | Held |
|---|---|---|---|
| Whether the trial court erred in allowing the State to amend the indictment to charge Williams as a habitual offender under § 99-19-81 | The State: amendment permitted under URCCC 7.09; formal motion filed pretrial provided adequate notice and did not affect the substantive offense | Williams: late amendment caused unfair surprise and deprived him of fair opportunity to defend / plea-bargain strategy | Held: No error — State provided adequate notice for § 99-19-81 amendment; conviction affirmed |
| Whether the State gave adequate pretrial notice to seek sentencing enhancement as a subsequent drug offender under § 41-29-147 | The State: relied on same prior conviction evidence; argued enhancement related to sentencing and could be raised | Williams: (argued lack of) insufficient pretrial notice of the § 41-29-147 enhancement (first apprised at sentencing) | Held: Error — inadequate notice for § 41-29-147; sentence portion based on that statute reversed and remanded for resentencing without that enhancement |
| Whether recidivist allegations must be in the indictment/grand jury’s role is infringed by late amendment | The State: recidivist enhancements affect only sentencing and need not be in grand jury indictment; URCCC allows amending indictments to add habitual status | Williams/dissent: elevating indictment late undermines grand jury’s exclusive charging power and constitutes unfair surprise when untimely | Held: Court rejects grand-jury argument for sentencing factors; follows precedent that recidivist statutes affect only sentencing, but requires adequate pretrial notice before amendment is applied |
Key Cases Cited
- Adams v. State, 772 So.2d 1010 (Miss. 2000) (amendment charging habitual status does not affect substantive offense but sentencing)
- McCain v. State, 81 So.3d 1055 (Miss. 2012) (URCCC 7.09 does not fix timing; adequacy of notice is case-by-case)
- Boyd v. State, 113 So.3d 1252 (Miss. 2013) (insufficient notice where State informed defendant on the morning of trial it would seek subsequent-offender sentencing)
- Almendarez-Torres v. United States, 523 U.S. 224 (1998) (prior convictions that enhance sentencing need not be alleged as elements in the indictment)
- Osborne v. State, 404 So.2d 545 (Miss. 1981) (recidivist statutes affect only sentencing)